Re: Not Answering Jeff Booth

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Mr. Schwartz,



        I disagree with you on this small point.  You said:

"2. To the extent that markets do nonetheless create unemployment and
inequality an MS system has to ensure full employment and a strong welfare
safety net. Again, there are no systematic interests in opposing these,
unlike in capitalism."



        There is, in fact a large systematic interest in opposing welfare
under socialism.  This is one of the legitimate objections to market
socialism.

        It seems clear that when the proletariat are making their own
economic decisions, they will, unfortunately, take on the logic of  the petit
bourgeoisie.  The meritocracy that they were force-fed under capitalism  -
they will now be able to embrace and sooth the collective damaged ego with
self-congratulation for economic success.  Under this condition, victims of
downturn can easily be labeled as "slackers."


        Two things assuage this.  First, the lack of aggression from above
will certainly mollify the aggression towards those below.  However, the most
important argument against a land of the petit-bourgeoisie - is the fact of
the organizations that will get them to their rightful place.  Broad-based
organizations, using mass action, require people to view their fates as
interconnected with those of former strangers turned comrades.  Also
ideologues such as you, I and our CP detractors, can create an enlightened
political climate.  Hence the Communists are essential to decry both the
present and the next phase, and keep crying and decrying until their
end-state is reached.


        peace





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------